Dataset Information

Evidence for treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: results of a systematic literature search update.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

A systematic literature review (SLR; 2009-2014) to compare a target-oriented approach with routine management in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to allow an update of the treat-to-target recommendations.

Methods

Two SLRs focused on clinical trials employing a treatment approach targeting a specific clinical outcome were performed. In addition to testing clinical, functional and/or structural changes as endpoints, comorbidities, cardiovascular risk, work productivity and education as well as patient self-assessment were investigated. The searches covered MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases and Clinicaltrial.gov for the period between 2009 and 2012 and separately for the period of 2012 to May of 2014.

Results

Of 8442 citations retrieved in the two SLRs, 176 articles underwent full-text review. According to predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, six articles were included of which five showed superiority of a targeted treatment approach aiming at least at low-disease activity versus routine care; in addition, publications providing supportive evidence were also incorporated that aside from expanding the evidence provided by the above six publications allowed concluding that a target-oriented approach leads to less comorbidities and cardiovascular risk and better work productivity than conventional care.

Conclusions

The current study expands the evidence that targeting low-disease activity or remission in the management of RA conveys better outcomes than routine care.

SUBMITTER: Stoffer MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4717391 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evidence for treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: results of a systematic literature search update.

Stoffer Michaela A MA Schoels Monika M MM Smolen Josef S JS Aletaha Daniel D Breedveld Ferdinand C FC Burmester Gerd G Bykerk Vivian V Dougados Maxime M Emery Paul P Haraoui Boulos B Gomez-Reino Juan J Kvien Tore K TK Nash Peter P Navarro-Compán Victoria V Scholte-Voshaar Marieke M van Vollenhoven Ronald R van der Heijde Désirée D Stamm Tanja A TA

Annals of the rheumatic diseases 20150519 1

<h4>Objective</h4>A systematic literature review (SLR; 2009-2014) to compare a target-oriented approach with routine management in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to allow an update of the treat-to-target recommendations.<h4>Methods</h4>Two SLRs focused on clinical trials employing a treatment approach targeting a specific clinical outcome were performed. In addition to testing clinical, functional and/or structural changes as endpoints, comorbidities, cardiovascular risk, work produc ...[more]

PMID: 25990290

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundReaching the therapeutic target of remission or low-disease activity has improved outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) significantly. The treat-to-target recommendations, formulated in 2010, have provided a basis for implementation of a strategic approach towards this therapeutic goal in routine clinical practice, but these recommendations need to be re-evaluated for appropriateness and practicability in the light of new insights.ObjectiveTo update the 2010 treat-to-target recommendations based on systematic literature reviews (SLR) and expert opinion.MethodsA task force of rheumatologists, patients and a nurse specialist assessed the SLR results and evaluated the individual items of the 2010 recommendations accordingly, reformulating many of the items. These were subsequently discussed, amended and voted upon by >40 experts, including 5 patients, from various regions of the world. Levels of evidence, strengths of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived.ResultsThe update resulted in 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations. The previous recommendations were partly adapted and their order changed as deemed appropriate in terms of importance in the view of the experts. The SLR had now provided also data for the effectiveness of targeting low-disease activity or remission in established rather than only early disease. The role of comorbidities, including their potential to preclude treatment intensification, was highlighted more strongly than before. The treatment aim was again defined as remission with low-disease activity being an alternative goal especially in patients with long-standing disease. Regular follow-up (every 1-3 months during active disease) with according therapeutic adaptations to reach the desired state was recommended. Follow-up examinations ought to employ composite measures of disease activity that include joint counts. Additional items provide further details for particular aspects of the disease, especially comorbidity and shared decision-making with the patient. Levels of evidence had increased for many items compared with the 2010 recommendations, and levels of agreement were very high for most of the individual recommendations (?9/10).ConclusionsThe 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations are based on stronger evidence than before and are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA.

Project description:IntroductionAlthough bDMARDs are effective in the treatment of RA, they are associated with dose-dependent side effects, patient burden, and high costs. Recently, many studies have investigated the possibility of discontinuing or tapering bDMARDs when patients have reached their treatment goal. The aim of this review is to provide a narrative overview of the existing evidence on bDMARD dose reduction and to provide answers to specific dose-reduction-related questions that are of interest to clinicians.MethodsWe systematically searched for relevant studies in four scientific databases. Furthermore, we screened the references of reviews and relevant studies.ResultsOur searches resulted in 45 original studies of bDMARD dose reduction in RA patients (15 RCTs and 30 observational studies). Current evidence shows that bDMARD dose reduction can be considered in all RA patients who achieve stable (e.g., ≥6 months) low disease activity or remission. The best strategies seem to be disease-activity-guided dose optimization and fixed dose reduction, since direct bDMARD discontinuation (without restarting) results in a high flare rate, worse physical functioning, and more joint damage. When tapering the bDMARD treatment of a patient, disease activity should be monitored closely, and if a flare occurs, the dose should be increased to the lowest effective dose. Current evidence shows that restarting bDMARD treatment is effective and safe. Unfortunately, no clear predictors of successful dose reduction have been identified so far.ConclusionThe current evidence and rising healthcare costs urge that dose reduction should be considered for eligible patients. However, the decision to start dose reduction should be made in shared decision-making. Future research should focus not only on a better understanding of the effects of dose reduction on clinical outcomes but also on the perspectives of patients and physicians as well as the implementation of this new treatment principle.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Where health economic studies are frequently performed using modelling, with input from randomized controlled trials and best guesses, we used real-life data to analyse the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a treatment strategy aiming to the target of remission compared to usual care in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We used real-life data from comparable cohorts in the Dutch Rheumatoid Arthritis Monitoring (DREAM) registry: the DREAM remission induction cohort (treat-to-target, T2T) and the Nijmegen early RA inception cohort (usual care, UC). Both cohorts were followed prospectively using the DREAM registry methodology. All patients fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology criteria for RA and were included in the cohort at the time of diagnosis. The T2T cohort was treated according to a protocolised strategy aiming at remission (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) < 2.6). The UC cohort was treated without DAS28-guided treatment decisions. EuroQol-5D utility scores were estimated from the Health Assessment Questionnaire. A health care perspective was adopted and direct medical costs were collected. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) per patient in remission and incremental cost utility ratio (ICUR) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were calculated over two and three years of follow-up. RESULTS: Two year data were available for 261 T2T patients and 213 UC patients; an extended follow-up of three years was available for 127 and 180 patients, respectively. T2T produced higher remission percentages and a larger gain in QALYs than UC. The ICER was € 3,591 per patient in remission after two years and T2T was dominant after three years. The ICUR was € 19,410 per QALY after two years and T2T was dominant after three years. CONCLUSIONS: We can conclude that treating to the target of remission in early RA is cost-effective compared with UC. The data suggest that in the third year, T2T becomes cost-saving.

Project description:Purpose: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a pervasive inflammatory autoimmune disease that seriously impairs human health and requires more effective non-pharmacologic treatment approaches. This study aims to systematically review and evaluate the efficacy of yoga for patients with RA. Methods: Medline (through PubMed), Cochrane Library, EMBASE (through SCOPUS), and Web of Science database were screened through for articles published until 20 July 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of yoga in patients with RA were included. Outcomes measures were pain, physical function, disease activity, inflammatory cytokines, and grip strength. For each outcome, standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Result: Ten trials including 840 patients with RA aged 30-70 years were identified, with 86% female participants. Meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant overall effect in favor of yoga for physical function (HAQ-DI) (5 RCTs; SMD = -0.32, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.05, I 2 = 15%, P = 0.02), disease activity (DAS-28) (4 RCTs; SMD = -0.38, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.06, I 2 = 41%, P = 0.02) and grip strength (2 RCTs; SMD = 1.30, 95% CI 0.47-2.13, I 2 = 63%, P = 0.002). No effects were found for pain, tender joints, swollen joints count or inflammatory cytokines (i.e., CRP, ESR, IL-6, and TNF-α). Summary: The findings of this meta-analysis indicate that yoga may be beneficial for improving physical function, disease activity, and grip strength in patients with RA. However, the balance of evidence showed that yoga had no significant effect in improving pain, tender joints, swollen joints count, and inflammatory cytokines in patients suffering from RA. Considering methodological limitations, small sample size, and low-quality, we draw a very cautious conclusion in the results of the estimate of the effect. High-quality and large-scale RCTs are urgently needed in the future, and the real result may be substantially different.

Dataset Information

Evidence for treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: results of a systematic literature search update.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Evidence for treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: results of a systematic literature search update.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets